The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision at trial that an insurer had a duty to indemnify against and defend an action brought by Dayton Hewson, an insured under a policy of liability insurance, against his father and mother, Larry and Jean Hewson, also insured under the same policy. The insurer argued that an exclusion clause in the policy excluded liability coverage for an insured in respect of a claim brought by another insured. The trial judge found that Dayton was an employee of his father, and therefore the exclusion clause did not apply. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial finding that the wording of the exclusion clause was ambiguous, and the definition of “employee” was reasonable; therefore, there was no error sufficient to warrant interference by the Court of Appeal.

20. August 2004 0
Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hewson, [2004] S.J. No. 534, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

This was an appeal of a decision granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment which dismissed the Appellant Insured’s action against an Insurer’s adjuster. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal holding that an adjuster may incur personal liability in tort if he or she engages in bad faith conduct that brings about the rejection of a valid claim for no-fault accident benefits under a standard contract of auto insurance.

22. July 2004 0
Walsh v. Nicholls, [2004] N.B.J. No. 281, New Brunswick Court of Appeal

The failure by the Defendant to keep his dog contained in the rear of his pick-up truck raised a causal connection between the injury to the Plaintiff who was bitten by the dog and the use of the truck. This satisfied the requirement that the Plaintiff’s injury arose out of the “use of” the vehicle such that both ICBC and a comprehensive personal liability insurer were jointly obligated to defend the Insured.

14. July 2004 0
Taylor v. Maris, [2004] B.C.J. No. 143, British Columbia Court of Appeal

Fitzpatrick was in the business of collecting and selling urine from pregnant mares. His operation was insured under a commercial general liability policy with a livestock floater attached. Damage to the mare’s fetuses, which did not affect the mares but caused a financial loss to Fitzpatrick due to his inability to sell their urine, was insured under the livestock floater of his CGL policy.

30. June 2004 0
Fitzpatrick v. Red River Valley Mutual Insurance Co., [2004] S.J. No. 453, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision obliging the Appellant, Optimum Insurance Company, to defend its insured and pay the cost of independent counsel in an action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The appellant insurer sought a stay of the matter pending the outcome of another matter deciding the same issues. The court upheld the lower court finding that there was a duty to defend, regardless of whether there were parallel proceedings and refused to grant a stay.

24. June 2004 0
Drane v. Optimum Frontier Insurance Co., [2004] N.B.J. No. 251, New Brunswick Court of Appeal

This appeal deals with the interpretation of a contract for additional underinsured motorist coverage and the application of the “collateral benefits rule”. The appeal court allowed the appellant insurer to set off against its own liability present and future long-term disability benefits received by the insured, pursuant to a private contract with another insurer. The appeal court held that the insurer enjoyed both a right of subrogation and an entitlement to an assignment with respect to its insured’s LTD benefits awarded because of a disability caused by the insured accident.

23. June 2004 0
Campbell-MacIsaac v. Deveaux, [2004] N.S.J. No. 250, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal